Registration Dossier
Registration Dossier
Diss Factsheets
Use of this information is subject to copyright laws and may require the permission of the owner of the information, as described in the ECHA Legal Notice.
EC number: 201-642-6 | CAS number: 85-91-6
- Life Cycle description
- Uses advised against
- Endpoint summary
- Appearance / physical state / colour
- Melting point / freezing point
- Boiling point
- Density
- Particle size distribution (Granulometry)
- Vapour pressure
- Partition coefficient
- Water solubility
- Solubility in organic solvents / fat solubility
- Surface tension
- Flash point
- Auto flammability
- Flammability
- Explosiveness
- Oxidising properties
- Oxidation reduction potential
- Stability in organic solvents and identity of relevant degradation products
- Storage stability and reactivity towards container material
- Stability: thermal, sunlight, metals
- pH
- Dissociation constant
- Viscosity
- Additional physico-chemical information
- Additional physico-chemical properties of nanomaterials
- Nanomaterial agglomeration / aggregation
- Nanomaterial crystalline phase
- Nanomaterial crystallite and grain size
- Nanomaterial aspect ratio / shape
- Nanomaterial specific surface area
- Nanomaterial Zeta potential
- Nanomaterial surface chemistry
- Nanomaterial dustiness
- Nanomaterial porosity
- Nanomaterial pour density
- Nanomaterial photocatalytic activity
- Nanomaterial radical formation potential
- Nanomaterial catalytic activity
- Endpoint summary
- Stability
- Biodegradation
- Bioaccumulation
- Transport and distribution
- Environmental data
- Additional information on environmental fate and behaviour
- Ecotoxicological Summary
- Aquatic toxicity
- Endpoint summary
- Short-term toxicity to fish
- Long-term toxicity to fish
- Short-term toxicity to aquatic invertebrates
- Long-term toxicity to aquatic invertebrates
- Toxicity to aquatic algae and cyanobacteria
- Toxicity to aquatic plants other than algae
- Toxicity to microorganisms
- Endocrine disrupter testing in aquatic vertebrates – in vivo
- Toxicity to other aquatic organisms
- Sediment toxicity
- Terrestrial toxicity
- Biological effects monitoring
- Biotransformation and kinetics
- Additional ecotoxological information
- Toxicological Summary
- Toxicokinetics, metabolism and distribution
- Acute Toxicity
- Irritation / corrosion
- Sensitisation
- Repeated dose toxicity
- Genetic toxicity
- Carcinogenicity
- Toxicity to reproduction
- Specific investigations
- Exposure related observations in humans
- Toxic effects on livestock and pets
- Additional toxicological data

Endpoint summary
Administrative data
Description of key information
It was observed that the test chemical failed to induce contact sensitization at challenge concentration of 3% in the test animals. Thus, the test chemical was considered to be not sensitizing on skin of guinea pigs at concentration of 3% in an Open Epicutaneous Test (OET).
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- data from handbook or collection of data
- Justification for type of information:
- Data is from publication
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: Open Epicutaneous test
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- An Open Epicutaneous Test (OET) was performed on guinea pigs to assess the skin sensitization potential of the test chemical
- GLP compliance:
- not specified
- Type of study:
- open epicutaneous test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- Currently no LLNA study is available for assessment. The Guinea Pig Maximization Test (GPMT) has been carried out as an animal test to predict human sensitization for over a decade and is recommended by international test guidelines such as OECD.
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- - Name of test material (as cited in study report): Methyl N-methyl anthranilate
- Molecular formula : C9H11NO2
- Molecular weight : 165.191 g/mole
- Substance type: Organic
- Physical State: Liquid - Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- other: Himalayan white-spotted
- Sex:
- male/female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Institute Of Biomedical Research Fullinsdrof Switzerland
- Age at study initiation:
- Weight at study initiation: 400 to 500 g.
- Housing:
- Diet (e.g. ad libitum): supplemented with green,Vegetables, carrots and vitamin C ad libitum
- Water (e.g. ad libitum): ad libitum - Route:
- epicutaneous, open
- Vehicle:
- other: ethanol, acetone, H20, petroleum, PEG and/or other suitable vehicles
- Concentration / amount:
- Concentration:100%, 30%, 10%, 3%, 1%, or 0.3%
Amount: 0.1ml - Day(s)/duration:
- 3 weeks
- Adequacy of induction:
- not specified
- No.:
- #1
- Route:
- epicutaneous, open
- Vehicle:
- other: ethanol, acetone, H20, petroleum, PEG and/or other suitable vehicles
- Concentration / amount:
- Concentration:3%
Amount: 0.025ml - Day(s)/duration:
- on days 21 and 35
- Adequacy of challenge:
- not specified
- No. of animals per dose:
- 6-8 guinea pigs
- Details on study design:
- RANGE FINDING TESTS: The minimal irritating concentration of each material is used to confirm the biological activity determined before starting the induction. These tests are performed by applying with a pipette 0.025 ml of each concentration to skin areas measuring 2 cm2. The reactions are read after 24, 48 and/or 72h.
MAIN STUDY
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 21
- Exposure period:24 hours
- Test groups:6-8 guinea pigs
- Control group:3 guinea pigs
- Site: an area measuring 8 cm2 on the clipped flank skin of the guinea pigs
- Frequency of applications: The applications are repeated daily for 3 weeks or done 5 times weekly during 4 weeks
- Duration: 21 days (3 weeks)
- Concentrations: 100%, 30%, 10%, 3%, 1%, or 0.3% in vehicle.
Amount: 0.1ml
B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 2
- Day(s) of challenge: on days 21 and 35
- Exposure period:24 hours
- Test groups: 6-8 guinea pigs
- Control group: 3 guinea pigs
- Site: contralateral flank measuring 2 cm2
- Concentrations: Concentration:6%
Amount: 0.025ml
- Evaluation (hr after challenge): 24,48 and/or 72h. - Challenge controls:
- The 10 controls were either left untreated or treated with 0.1 ml aliquot of the vehicle for 21 days
- Positive control substance(s):
- not specified
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 3%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 8
- Clinical observations:
- It was observed that none of the guinea pigs induced contact sensitization at challenge concentration of 3%.
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Interpretation of results:
- other: not sensitizing
- Conclusions:
- It was observed that the test chemical failed to induce contact sensitization at challenge concentration of 3% in the test animals. Thus, the test chemical was considered to be not sensitizing on skin of guinea pigs at concentration of 3% in an Open Epicutaneous Test (OET).
- Executive summary:
An Open Epicutaneous Test (OET) was performed on guinea pigs to assess the skin sensitization potential of the test chemical.
On day 1 during induction, 0.1 ml of the test chemical was applied at concentrations of 100%, 30%, 10%, 3%, 1%, or 0.3% in vehicle to an area measuring 8 cm2 on the clipped flank skin of the guinea pigs. The applications are repeated daily for 3 weeks or done 5 times weekly during 4 weeks, usually on the same skin sites. The application sites were left uncovered and the reactions, if continuous daily applications were performed, can be read 24 h after each application, or at the end of each week.
To determine whether or not contact sensitization was induced, all groups of guinea pigs previously treated for 21 days, as well as 10 untreated, or only pretreated with the vehicle, controls are tested on days 21 and 35 on the contralateral flank with the test material. This test was performed by applying with a pipette 0.025 ml of each concentration to skin areas measuring 2 cm2. The reactions were read after 24, 48 and/or 72h.
It was observed that the test chemical failed to induce contact sensitization at challenge concentration of 3% in the test animals. Thus, the test chemical was considered to be not sensitizing on skin of guinea pigs at concentration of 3% in an Open Epicutaneous Test (OET).
Reference
Table: Allergenicity of Compounds tested in Humans by the Maximization Test and in Guinea Pigs by 4 Different Procedures
Guinea pigs |
|||||
OET |
DTb |
MTb |
FCATb |
||
Minimum irritating concentration (%) |
Results |
Results |
Results |
Results |
|
After 1 day application |
After 21 days application |
||||
100 |
3 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
a- the occlusive eliciting concentration application was only at the user concentration *2
b- DT, MT, FCAT: Concentrations see in the method
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
Skin Sensitization
Various studies have been summarized to determine the allergenic potential of the test chemical in living organisms.The studies are based on in vivo experiments in guinea pigs as well as humans for the test chemical.
An Open Epicutaneous Test (OET) was performed on guinea pigs to assess the skin sensitization potential of the test chemical.
On day 1 during induction, 0.1 ml of the test chemical was applied at concentrations of 100%, 30%, 10%, 3%, 1%, or 0.3% in vehicle to an area measuring 8 cm2 on the clipped flank skin of the guinea pigs. The applications are repeated daily for 3 weeks or done 5 times weekly during 4 weeks, usually on the same skin sites. The application sites were left uncovered and the reactions, if continuous daily applications were performed, can be read 24 h after each application, or at the end of each week.
To determine whether or not contact sensitization was induced, all groups of guinea pigs previously treated for 21 days, as well as 10 untreated, or only pretreated with the vehicle, controls are tested on days 21 and 35 on the contralateral flank with the test material. This test was performed by applying with a pipette 0.025 ml of each concentration to skin areas measuring 2 cm2. The reactions were read after 24, 48 and/or 72h.
It was observed that the test chemical failed to induce contact sensitization at challenge concentration of 3% in the test animals. Thus, the test chemical was considered to be not sensitizing on skin of guinea pigs at concentration of 3% in an Open Epicutaneous Test (OET).
This is supported by the sensitization study performed on 25 volunteers to determine its sensitization potential. 10% in petrolatum of test sample was administrated on different panels of human subject. No known cutaneous reaction was observed in 25 volunteers. Therefore, the test chemical can be considered as not sensitizing on human skin.
These results are lent support by the study performed on guinea pigs according to Draize method to determine the sensitization potential of the test chemical. Groups of 6–8 male and female outbred Himalayan white-spotted guinea pigs were used for the study. A dose of 0.05 ml of 0.1% solution of test chemical in isotonic saline was injected intradermally on day 0 and further doses of 0.1 ml each were injected on 9 alternate days. The total dose injected was 0.95 mg. The treated animals and untreated controls were challenged intradermally with 0.05 ml of a 0.1 per cent solution on days 35 and 49.The evaluation criterion was the mean diameter of the papular reactions at the test sites.
No sensitization reactions were observed on the skin of guinea pigs. Hence, the test chemical was considered to be not sensitizing to skin.
These results are further supported by a Guinea pig Maximization test performed to assess the sensitization potential of the test chemical in guinea pigs. Groups of 6–8 male and female outbred Himalayan white-spotted guinea pigs were used for the study. On day 0, the animals were injected intradermally with 0.1 ml of a 5% solution of test chemical, 0.1 ml of a 5% emulsion of test chemical in Freund’s complete adjuvant (FCA) and 0.1 ml of FCA alone. Each injection was given twice. In addition, 250 mg of test chemical dissolved in petrolatum at a concentration of 25% was applied on day 8 to a clipped area of the neck and was kept under occlusive bandage for 48 h. On day 21, test chemical at a sub-irritant concentration in petrolatum was applied to the flank for 24 h under occlusion. Reactions were read at 24 and 48 h after removal of the patch.
No sensitization reactions were observed on the skin of guinea pigs.
Hence, the test chemical was considered to be not sensitizing to skin.
These results are also supported by a Freund’s Complete Adjuvant test performed to assess the sensitization potential of the test chemical in guinea pigs. Groups of 6–8 male and female outbred Himalayan white-spotted guinea pigs were used for the study. Doses of 0.05 ml of the undiluted compound mixed with the same volume of FCA were injected intradermally into the neck on days 0, 2, 4, 7, and 9 (total dose 250 mg). The control animals were similarly treated with 5 x 0.05 ml of FCA alone. All the animals were tested epicutaneously on days 21 and 35. No sensitization reactions were observed on the skin of guinea pigs.
Hence, the test chemical was considered to be not sensitizing to skin.
The above results are also supported by another Human maximization test carried out with 10% test chemical in petrolatum on various panels of volunteers. Application was under occlusion to the same site on the forearms or backs of all subjects for five alternate day, 48-hour periods. Patch sites were pre-treated for 24 hours with 5% aqueous sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) under occlusion. Following a 10 – 14 day rest period, challenge patches were applied under occlusion to fresh sites for 48 hours. Reactions were read at patch removal and again at 24 hours.
The test chemical failed to induce any dermal reactions after the challenge exposure.
Hence, it was assessed to be non sensitizing to the skin of humans.
Available studies for the test chemical indicate that it lacks the potential to cause any dermal reaction to the skin. Hence, it can be considered to be not sensitizing to skin.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
Available studies for the test chemical indicate that it lacks the potential to cause any dermal reaction to the skin. Hence, it can be considered to be not sensitizing to skin.
Information on Registered Substances comes from registration dossiers which have been assigned a registration number. The assignment of a registration number does however not guarantee that the information in the dossier is correct or that the dossier is compliant with Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (the REACH Regulation). This information has not been reviewed or verified by the Agency or any other authority. The content is subject to change without prior notice.
Reproduction or further distribution of this information may be subject to copyright protection. Use of the information without obtaining the permission from the owner(s) of the respective information might violate the rights of the owner.
